Home | About | Donate

Up Against the Wall Street Journal: A Green Job Guarantee

Up Against the Wall Street Journal: A Green Job Guarantee

John Miller

A federal job guarantee—under which the government would offer a job to anyone who needs one—would alter the balance of power in the labor market in favor of workers. And it would enlarge the size of the government considerably more than the New Deal did in the midst of the Great Depression.

1 Like

A job guarantee goes against a Universal (Unconditional) Basic Income. Better to give everyone enough to live on so they can find a job they like, go back to school, create, invent, build, garden, take care of elderly, kids, households and other unpaid labor, something only the 1% can afford today.


Everyone working so everyone buying cars, commuting, buying more stuff, traveling, etc. More and more people consuming is the answer to what exactly?

We should be paying everyone NOT to consume, not to drive, pay them to go to school, to plant plants everywhere, to tend a herd, to make music, etc.


Also, a green job guarantee does not account for the huge loss of jobs by automation. It lends itself to useless, inefficient “make-work” jobs. An UBI is the proven solution.


Gulker sounds like he knows how much FDR’s New Deal cost, so why don’t we just restore all the New Deal regulations that the best Congress money can buy ditched during the past four decades (dismantling the US middle class in the process) thereby reaching the same progressive goals at a cost lower than guaranteed basic income or guaranteed jobs ?

1 Like

Gulker, like other orthodox economic parrots, regurgitates all the manufactured, required numbers to demonstrate Armageddon is upon us and our current system that impoverishes millions of people will be disrupted. Apparently he thinks this would be a bad thing.
Let the disruption begin, and let us stop wealth from being transferred from the bottom to the top. Millions depend upon it. The reign of ‘kings n’ nobles’ must end. The false religion of capitalism is barring its teeth - let’s file them down.

Yes, upgrades to infrastructure should reduce energy consumption, not merely phase out polluting energy sources. “A Green New Deal that would increase renewable power sources, construct energy-efficient utility grids, eliminate residential, industrial and transportation greenhouse-gas emissions within 10 years,” may not address the exploitation of car-dependency, ie, long-distance driving in rush hour traffic with no choice but to drive. Electrification of long-distance trucking and shipping products around the world, business as usual, is likewise an exercise in futility. Any Green Job guarantee must address exploitation of dependency such as the adage “Your money or your life” infers with health care in the USA. With car dependency, the adage might read, “Without a car, you’d soon be unemployed, impoverished and scorned by a politely car-addicted society.”

Making our country, and in the wider scope our world, more livable, and less reliant on consuming large items which add to the overall pollution of our air and water, such as passenger cars, is a great idea.

The investment in mass transit systems designed not just for the poor, but everybody, will move our society towards less carbon consumption and it’s pollution.

Good idea.